Snark detected —

UK judge: Apple notice on Samsung a “breach of order,” orders new notice

Judge is getting irritated with Apple.

A UK judge was unamused by Apple's interpretation of an order requiring the company to publicly acknowledge that Samsung didn't copy Apple's designs. On Thursday, the UK Court of Appeal gave Apple a slap on the wrist for the notice it posted earlier this week, which used a direct quote from High Court Judge Colin Birss saying Samsung's tablets were "not as cool" as Apple's. Apple now has 24 to 48 hours (depending on which source you read) to post an updated statement, perhaps this time with a little less snark.

"I’m at a loss that a company such as Apple would do this," Judge Robin Jacob said during a hearing in London on Thursday, according to Bloomberg. "That is a plain breach of the order."

The "breach of the order" was apparently that Apple had amended the statement originally ordered by the court. As detailed by The Guardian, Apple's misstep was its decision to add details from other court cases—particularly in the US—where the courts had ruled against Samsung for allegedly copying Apple's designs.

"A US jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion US dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the UK court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad," reads the end of Apple's statement.

Apple tried to argue that it would take 14 days to post an updated notice on its website, but the request was shot down. In fact, Judge Jacob made it clear that Apple's actions are beginning to make him testy.

"I would like to see the head of Apple make an affidavit setting out the technical difficulties which means Apple can’t put this on" its site, Jacob said. "I just can’t believe the instructions you’ve been given. This is Apple. They cannot put something on their website?"

The notice must be on Apple's UK website until December 14. In the original order, Apple was also told to pay for ads in a number of UK publications, though it appears as if those have not yet materialized.

Jacqui Cheng
Jacqui is an Editor at Large at Ars Technica, where she has spent the last eight years writing about Apple culture, gadgets, social networking, privacy, and more. Emailjacqui@arstechnica.com//Twitter@eJacqui

It was a pretty blatant snub of the courts ruling... I'm amazed that the judge didn't hand down some kind of penalty.

And yes... 14 days to update a website? Really?

I kind of believe it. They have to take down their whole store website whenever they add new products. Amazon and every other online retailer have figured out a way around this. ;-)

Pretty sure they just take the store "offline" to hide the new projects until the keynote is finished. I mean, sure, they could do a switchover after the keynote ends, but people watching the keynote might be confused if they immediately go to the Apple store and don't see their product. And it makes things more dramatic.

I kind of believe it. They have to take down their whole store website whenever they add new products. Amazon and every other online retailer have figured out a way around this. ;-)

They take down the website so that they can do a splash campaign. They don't need to take down the whole site, it is merely to heighten the suspense.

Plus a simple text change even if it is embedded in graphics takes a competent graphics artist 10 minutes and then upload, bam.. Surely they have development and staging environments for their website...

The 14 days is more than likely related to internal Apple policies that state the process that changes are required to go through. The claim is most likely that it is routed through the normal change management process and the change advisory board meets every other week so that is how long it would take for the changes to get pushed.

I'm positive that Apple wouldn't try to claim it is technically impossible to push the change faster but in order to reduce impact on their site, this change should follow the process used by any others which takes 14 days.

Edit: just to be clear, I do not have any insight into Apple's inner-workings; the above is just conjecture

Being fond of humor, and against all forms of authority, I would have sided with Apple on this if their actual response had been a little bit more subtle. They turned it instead in their typical nauseating marketing drivel.

I'm honestly surprised that Apple thought it would be a good idea to stick their tongue out at the court like that. Frankly it's the behavior of an immature child who is angry that he didn't get his way. It reeks of a poisonous kind of hubris, and at some point Cook is going to have decide whether acting like the plucky outsider underdog with a hip and fresh attitude is going to be compatible long term with a business the scale of Apple.

The 14 days is more than likely related to internal Apple policies that state the process that changes are required to go through. The claim is most likely that it is routed through the normal change management process and the change advisory board meets every other week so that is how long it would take for the changes to get pushed.

I'm positive that Apple wouldn't try to claim it is technically impossible to push the change faster but in order to reduce impact on their site, this change should follow the process used by any others which takes 14 days.

Complete bullshit. How soon after Jobs died did they update their site?

Am I the only one who finds the court ruling to be a bit bizarre? It's like assigning the company to write lines on the blackboard and then reciting this to the class: "I will not call Samsung a bunch of copy cats."

As a non-lawyer, I am curious how this relates to freedom of speech. I would think that Apple would be within their rights to publish that they disagree with the judge.

Having read the published statement, I have no doubt it technically meets the requirement of the court order. Having interacted with a few Apple lawyers, I doubt they're stupid. However, they, and their employers, can certainly be foolish. As my grandfather (a police sergeant) used to say: "It doesn't matter what the law is; you just DON'T piss off a judge!"

I wonder if they'll just move their clever retorts to a separate page and simply provide a link to it on the court-ordered one under the guise of "more information." That way the court still gets the finger, albeit a more subtle one. I also wonder if they'll do that and then get in even more trouble.

Am I the only one who finds the court ruling to be a bit bizarre? It's like assigning the company to write lines on the blackboard and then reciting this to the class: "I will not call Samsung a bunch of copy cats."

As a non-lawyer, I am curious how this relates to freedom of speech. I would think that Apple would be within their rights to publish that they disagree with the judge.

IANAL, but IMHO it may be because the UK courts don't have the jurisdiction to render the patents invalid, so it may be the most they can do.

A breath of fresh air. We as a species have lost our god damn minds when it comes to follow the law. I don't know where the transition occurred, but somewhere along the line, people began believing that the law that was written on the piece of paper is more important than what the law means and what it was trying to do (letter vs spirit).

Glad to see that some of the justices of the world are actually more concerned with using the law to do what's right instead of doing what's easy or what will get the biggest payoff.

The 14 days is more than likely related to internal Apple policies that state the process that changes are required to go through. The claim is most likely that it is routed through the normal change management process and the change advisory board meets every other week so that is how long it would take for the changes to get pushed.

I'm positive that Apple wouldn't try to claim it is technically impossible to push the change faster but in order to reduce impact on their site, this change should follow the process used by any others which takes 14 days.

Complete bullshit. How soon after Jobs died did they update their site?

Obits are prepared well in advance. I had to prepare an obit home screen for a very well known public figure. The page was complete and approved weeks before their passing. There were still last minute changes as the site had to coordinate with half a dozen other properties.

Complete bullshit. How soon after Jobs died did they update their site?

Don't hate the messenger, I am just providing what is most likely their reasoning. To your specific example, they were most likely well prepared for that inevitability and even if they weren't, it could have been an emergency change. Apple isn't going to offer up their emergency change process for something like this and would just state their normal process.

I get where you're coming from but as you have already seen, they aren't REALLY trying to satisfy the court's order so what I've stated above would be the rationale that I would use if I was doing the same thing.

Am I the only one who finds the court ruling to be a bit bizarre? It's like assigning the company to write lines on the blackboard and then reciting this to the class: "I will not call Samsung a bunch of copy cats."

As a non-lawyer, I am curious how this relates to freedom of speech. I would think that Apple would be within their rights to publish that they disagree with the judge.

I suspect that if Apple had created a separate link saying "We think the UK ruling is bullshit", they'd be OK.

But as it is they were ordered to say something specific, and failed to do so.

As far as the ruling, I think courts can really rule whatever the hell they want, so long as it's legal. It's just that the stranger it gets, the more likely it is to be overturned in one manner or another.

In this case it's pretty standard, really, to force someone to issue a retraction to statements. I've seen the same done with newspapers; if a paper were to say "brentK is a terrible human being that smells like rotten milk", you could take them to court and force them to issue a retraction that matches the placement, etc of the original statement. This is much the same; Apple's said that Samsung copied, the UK courts found otherwise, and forced Apple to publicly retract their claims.

A breath of fresh air. We as a species have lost our god damn minds when it comes to follow the law. I don't know where the transition occurred, but somewhere along the line, people began believing that the law that was written on the piece of paper is more important than what the law means and what it was trying to do (letter vs spirit).

Glad to see that some of the justices of the world are actually more concerned with using the law to do what's right instead of doing what's easy or what will get the biggest payoff.

The "spirit" (common sense) of the law has definitely been lacking...

Its like giving someone a ticket for jaywalking when they step out into traffic and cause an incident vs. ticketing them solely for not using the crosswalk on an empty street.

The order said to include certain information, which Apple clearly did. It didn't say anything about editorializing. Followed to the letter, if not the spirit. This just looks like the judge got pissy that his ruling was twisted a bit, but that's his own fault for not being more clear.

Am I the only one who finds the court ruling to be a bit bizarre? It's like assigning the company to write lines on the blackboard and then reciting this to the class: "I will not call Samsung a bunch of copy cats."

As a non-lawyer, I am curious how this relates to freedom of speech. I would think that Apple would be within their rights to publish that they disagree with the judge.

There's a world of difference between disagreeing and trying to say it's wrong.

Here's what disagreeing would look like:"While Apple disagrees with the court decision, it fully respects it."

Here's what apple did:"However, in a case tried in Germany regarding the same patent, the court found that Samsung engaged in unfair competition by copying the iPad design. A U.S. jury also found Samsung guilty of infringing on Apple's design and utility patents, awarding over one billion U.S. dollars in damages to Apple Inc. So while the U.K. court did not find Samsung guilty of infringement, other courts have recognized that in the course of creating its Galaxy tablet, Samsung willfully copied Apple's far more popular iPad."

Does it looks like Apple just disagree or they are trying to say the UK court is wrong?

The 14 days is more than likely related to internal Apple policies that state the process that changes are required to go through. The claim is most likely that it is routed through the normal change management process and the change advisory board meets every other week so that is how long it would take for the changes to get pushed.

I'm positive that Apple wouldn't try to claim it is technically impossible to push the change faster but in order to reduce impact on their site, this change should follow the process used by any others which takes 14 days.

Edit: just to be clear, I do not have any insight into Apple's inner-workings; the above is just conjecture

Looks like Apple got itself a wedgie and got hung by its underwear waistband in the locker room by the UK courts. They should have known better than to respond "cheekyly" with a court order. Sometimes the law may not favour you, but you have resist the temptation of acting too smart even if you think your joke is the shit.